• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ToddW

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Location
    world traveler
  1. ToddW


    I was looking around on site to make sure when I pass on info it's not construed a certain way and it's is always beneficial to others. As an "accidental litigator", having been attacked by crooked judges, crooked attorneys and crooked public servants while exposing massive fraud committed by purported "creditors" and their stoolie attorneys, I've been CYA for a long time. Providing education for people across the country that actually wakes them up to the fraud being committed upon them, the inevitable "credit rescue services" and "unlicensed practice of law" attacks usually surface when pressing public servants (like state regulatory agencies) to actually do their job and shut crooked debt collectors down. Won't go into the politics here, but having had a hand at helping shut down crooked fraudclosure mills, getting lucky to examine a fraudclosure mill attorney (Thomas P. Dore) under oath at an 11 Aug 2010 hearing and exposing crooked judges has brought a few attacks. I've taken some arrows, and a few are still sticking in me due to exposing more and more judical corruption with regard to crooked debt collectors. That said, many are afraid to share helpful info for fear of the UPL (unlicensed practice of law) sham claim. Before I share cases (not opinion) to rebut that sham claim, I've screened and interviewed at least 150 attorneys looking for a few good ones that "get it", will not throw their client under the bus behind their back, and have the integrity to not learn on their client's nickle. My search (on and off) usually ends in exasperation as most attorneys are lazy and ignorant, as well a arrogant. But recently we finally found a firm that we are testing a few cc cases with to see if our knowledge and their "muscle" can produce settlements without protracted litigation for consumers. I have friends (some good friends) that are attorneys. One sues crooked public servants that violate their oath and breach their duty to the public trust. Another is a former Asst State Attorney, 1st Amend scholar, civil rights litigator, title insurance producer and video journalist. That said, of course I speak in "what I would do...." in generalities and legal education is not legal advice. The whole legal "profession" is a racket, like the mob, or a closed shop union that you have to hire to work in your business. There are certain types of attorneys that are worth their weight in gold (patent attorneys come to mind) and a few others, but in the "debt" collection game there are a lot of lazy incompetent attorneys that will take your money and do nothing or leave you in worse condition than when you paid them the retainer. Another "secret" is the legal "profession" is supposedly "self regulating" to purportedly ensure "autonomy" and no "political influence" . The problem with a purported "self regulating" profession is they don't always regulate themselves very well. Worse they use the regulatory mechanism to get rid of anyone that would expose their monopoly. I've gone after crooked attorneys many times as well as people we share information with across the country. That goes for crooked judges who have no business judging a ham sandwich, let alone their fellow man/woman. I've seen up close how deeply entrenched the corruption goes in covering up for crooked attorneys and judges most of whom are in the back pocket of the very backs and crooked "debt" collectors coming after you for bogus claims. That said, credit card cases are (compared to fraudclosure) incredibly easy to crush your adversary. But if any of you are attacked trying to help others keep these tools in your back pocket in case you take a few arrows like I have. the DOJ and FTC know the legal "profession" is anti-competitive. Wisconsin Supreme Court also gave a very narrow definition instead of a broad defintiion as a "catch all" to keep out competition. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and federal judge Edith Jones both have commented on the "crisis of confidence in the judiciary" and the corruption of the legal profession. The FTC has also exposed the monopoly the American Bar Assn (and local closed union shops) the state BAR Assn's have on keeping out those who would not only expose the "practice of law" racket but bring competition to the monopoly and drive down prices so consumers could actually afford capable, competent "representation". Things are changing as more consumers get educated. See from Corpus Juris Secundum who the attorney owes a duty to first, it's not the client. Here is quote from attached docs. Take time to go through and formulate your opinion. The cases are clear to me and when a few crooks started barking up this tree I shared the info you have attached and they went packing. It comes down to jurisdiction as well. Here's the quote from an attorney himself "In an article addressing the ABA’s proposed Model Definition, Attorney James C. Turner wrote, “There is a better approach. We should limit the concept of unauthorized practice by establishing a common-sense, brightline test that equates it to fraudulent practice — that is, saying you’re a lawyer when you’re not... Consumers understand this, and so should the profession.” In conclusion, Turner stated, “Whether the ABA likes it or not, lawyers cannot fully serve the legal needs of the public, and non-lawyer legal providers are here to stay. It is time to come into the 21st century and repudiate protectionist practices that hurt consumers and justifiably engender disdain for the legal profession.”[19] This is an incredibly powerful statement coming from an attorney himself." Attached docs in support there is no "license" to practice. The Supreme Court concurs. Still watch your back and "do no harm" but keep these if needed Atty First Duty is to Court.doc Defense of Unllicensed Practice of Law.doc Case Cites- Supreme Ct- can't license.txt FTC & DOJ Position on UPL.pdf Case Cites- Unrep Litigants- Pleading Standard is Less.doc WI Decision UPL Definition.pdf
  2. affidavits are hearsay per MI. Evid. Rule 802 and are inadmissible as long as you object. The reason the affidavit is inadmissible is the affiant is not in court for you to examine under oath as to their personal first hand knowedge of the purported "account". They have no personal knowledge and most likely the shill that signed the affidavit works in the mailroom. If you do use that MTQ and I can't repost one with MI rules/ code just delete the Pa. code rules and leave the cases. Most unrepresented consumers and even lazy attorneys don't cite rules/code. You can literally drop the Pa info but there are Supreme court cases in that MTQ that go directly to the jurisdiction of the court. Most dumbo "debt" colllectors are used to the 95% default rate when consumers are sued for credit card cases. Just the fact you are challenging jurisdiction telegraphs to the dumbo debt collector you are not a huckleberry. The message you are sending is as important if not more than the actual tool being used Hope that helps.
  3. Shellie- attacking jurisdiction puts brakes on and shuts case down. That buys time to get debt val out, default them, serve discovery and move for summary judgment when they don't answer. I can't name names here but we've attacked jurisdictiion in multiple states in both fraudclosure and credit card cases. I am an "accidental litigator" out of necessity when hurricane Katrina wiped out our $3M real estate development business. After burning through over (to date) $300k servicing "debt" on purported "loans" on vacant damaged properties and almost losing everything out of necessity I had to figure out what was really going on. Despite having an MBA I had no idea how the financial system really worked. In the past 8yrs I've spent at least 7,000 hours figuring things out. The goal is to make things easy for those that are working, running a business, raising a family, and just getting through life, to figure out thte quickest way to turn their problem around and then put that problem to rest as fast as possible. We've spent the last 2yrs putting together information with the singular goal of helping consumers quickly understand how they are being scammed with "credit cards", student "loans" , auto "loans" as well as "mortgages". The fraudclosure racket is same as the credit card racket. The vehicle of choice with credit card securitization is a FASIT (financial asset securitization investment trust) that pools cc accounts, student "loans", auto "loans" and mobile home "loans" just as a REMIC (real estate mortgage investment conduit) pools notes to securitize. The above means there is NEVER a real party in interest suing the consumer on a purported "credit" card account. It's one big racket and with knowledge of just a few rules of procedure (standing, real party in interest), a few rules of evidence (requirement of originals, authenticated documents by a competent witness with first hand knowledge) every consumer can blow these crooked debt collectors out of the water 100% fo the time and put their problem to rest quickly. I used to also be a small private lender when I was a full time developer and if any builder or rehabber thought I was taking advantage of them I could produce the books and records of the transaction and verify those business records as well as authenticate documents because I am a credible competent witness with first hand knowledge of the transaction. These crooked "debt" collectors and the purported original "creditor" can never validate the purported "debt" or extension of "credit" with any admissible evidence. I'm really busy but we have a team and I will try to recycle that Motion to Quash with MI rules/ code since it's easy to convert. We are working with a homeowner in MI on state and federal court case (he sued the bank) so we have been in MI rules/code (state and federal) and have Lexis account. Will gladly help where I can and try to leverage as much as I know so the information is actionable and not useless factoids. The goal is to communicate first how you, me, and the rest of the consumers are getting swindled, everything we were told about the "financial" system is a lie and most important with some basic understanding consumers can effectively fight back. I've personally dealt with LVNV, PYOD and Northland Group, Inc. and they are all related companies. I have Notice to Sue and pro forma complaint I'm going to file in about 2 weeks (2 of them) if they don't bring settlement offer to the table. Hope this is helpful. Will try to conver that MTQ and repost for the consumer that hopefully will put it to use. One of the best investments one can make is Jurisdictionary. It's the best $250 one will ever spend on their education. It will last a lifetime. and give consumers the tools to fight back no matter what comes their way. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. When you know how to handle yourself when facing a legal challenge (without or with an attorney) it totally changes the game and increases your probabillity of success 1000%.
  4. I just wrote a thorough post but it was autodeleted. Not sure why. don't have time to retype. Suffice to say we are in the fraudclosure game in 17 states and credit cards are sideline. They are easy to win 100% of the time since the purported "creditor" cannot prove their claim with admissible evidence. Attack jurisdiction. We always attack jurisdiction. Even though you were "served" due to your misunderstanding and ignorance of your rights attack in personam jurisdiction. Hope it's ok to share docs. Just paying forward. Caveat- read and UNDERSTAND what you use before you use it. That is the only stipulation. Do you research and be a prudent consumer, not reckless like the deadbeat "debt" collectors who file sham claims on a daily basis. Here is Motion to Quash the summons/ complaint- copy/paste into Word doc, make sure it fits your situation/info and know and understand the tool you are using. This is in the public record with creative commons license to use. Keep referring back as the group helps you worth through this. If you hit the bully square between the eyes (legally speaking) the thugs will disappear. Stick with it.
  5. We are in this game personally and sharing education for consumers across the country. Personally I serve debt val that I know they cannot substantively comply with per state and federal mandate. When they are defaulted on debt val I include the debt val as an attachment to the credit bureau dispute letter. here is 1st dispute letter I use. There is very specific language as my end goal is settlement or I'll file the suit if they don't settle. I use debt val and credit bureau dispute letters (x3 bureaus) as evidence/exhibits to the complaint. You can copy/paste below into Word doc and make sure you put your info in there. Believe it or not I've shared this and people forget or are just rreckless and don't per their info in there since they are moving so fast. Note to self- make sure you UNDERSTAND what you are sending both extrajudicially (outside of court) and judicially so that you are 100% accountable and responsible. That is a winning formula and will collectively help not only yourself, but those that come after you. Pass it on. Todd WetzelbergerP.O. Box 24702Baltimore, Maryland 21220TransUnion Mark Marinko: President, Consumer Services 555 W. Adams Street Chicago, IL 60661 Cert Mail No. 7012 2210 0000 7532 9153 5 August 2013 Re: Purported Acct No. Citibank, N.A./ PYOD LLC # ************4188 Mr. Marinko: I am writing to inform you of Transunion 's erroneous, slanderous reporting of purported Citibank, N.A./ PYOD LLC Acct No. ************4188. PYOD LLC (“PYOD”) has reported the account to your credit reporting agency as 30 or more days late. The fact is, the claim of PYOD is a sham and a fraud, and aforementioned account is erroneous. The preceding fact is based upon facts personally known to me as the document custodian, in possession, custody and control of evidence of said error (Attachment A). Northland Group, Inc. (“NGI”) as a defined “debt collector” attempting to collect on a sham claim for PYOD, as a fictitious payee, had a duty pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) upon receipt of a Complaint, Dispute of Debt and Demand for Validation discovery request, to refrain from reporting any negative, slanderous information to any credit reporting agency until a substantive response, supporting a bona fide claim with strict proof (admissible evidence) has been produced. NGI failed to substantively respond to pre-suit extrajudicial discovery by providing strict proof as is its duty. PYOD had a duty pursuant to FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §1681 to also remove all/any negative comments on the defined consumer’s credit report, until a bona fide claim is produced. NGI had notice and opportunity to validate, substantiate and authenticate the purported account and failed/ refused to do so. NGI is in default per the FDCPA, FCRA and additional state and federal mandates. I have initiated civil and administrative complaints due to fraud, unjust enrichment and other injuries as a direct and proximate result of NGI’s violation of civil and criminal statutes. PYOD violated the FCRA by willfully failing to comply with the FCRA in the following respects: By reporting information relating to the credit profile of Todd Wetzelberger to consumer reporting agencies with actual knowledge of errors in the information provided: by reporting slanderous and erroneous information to credit reporting agencies relating to the credit profile of the legal person Todd Wetzelberger, when PYOD knew the reported information was inaccurate; by failing to inform Todd Wetzelberger in writing about the information which PYOD had reported to credit reporting agencies. The erroneous reporting by PYOD of false, derogatory, slanderous information to TransUnion has caused injury to the good name and credit score of the legal person Todd Wetzelberger, thereby diminishing the ability to access credit. Todd Wetzelberger is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to the FCRA, 15 USC § 1681n. Pursuant to the FCRA, investigate this information referral, confirm the public record evidence substantiating the erroneous, slanderous reporting of purported Citibank, N.A./ PYOD LLC Acct. No. ************4188, by PYOD LLC and update your records to reflect the admissible evidence in the record, within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Update the TransUnion credit report to remove inaccurate, slanderous information to prevent any further damage to the good name and credit profile of Todd Wetzelberger. Failure to comply with this request will result in civil and possible criminal penalties per the FCRA and reporting to the Federal Trade Commission to compel compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Act. Sincerely, ____________________________________ Todd Wetzelberger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, _____________________________, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via USPS Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested in a sealed envelope on or about this ____ day of _________________, 2013 to the following recipients: TransUnion Mark Marinko: President, Consumer Services 555 W. Adams Street Chicago, IL 60661 Cert Mail No. 7012 2210 0000 7532 9153 c. John Blenke: TransUnion Corporate General Counsel I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this ___ day of _________________2013, at _______________County, Maryland _______________________________ Todd Wetzelberger